Re: Source licensing

From: Arthur Keller <arthur_at_kellers_dot_org>
Date: Sun May 09 2004 - 19:00:36 CDT

At 4:45 PM -0700 5/9/04, Karl Auerbach wrote:
>On Sun, 9 May 2004, David Mertz wrote:
>> I find it deeply offensive--though obviously I know it's not factually
>> unusual--for my tax dollars to fund development of unfree software.
>A lot of universities, public and private, retain intellectual property
>rights and license them to generate fee income.
>In any event, I don't think anyone is advocating a retreat from GPL like
>copyright/license terms.

I'd like to consider other non-GPL, but still free, models of the
software, as well as further restrictions we might want to impose.

>However, there is a distinct issue regarding licensing by the OVC (for
>money) of service marks associated with the software.
>Because this is voting software and because image and perception are
>incredibly important, no matter the license, we may very well want to put
>the project under ISO 9000x type processes. I know that much of this is
>paperwork - form over substance - but this kind of thing can help overcome
>a lot of perceptual objections.

Good suggestions.

>We need to define coding rules, tests and regression tests, documentation
>standards, and other such processes. To my mind the testing/QA part of
>this project is substantially larger than the basic coding effort.

Those are worthwhile and implementable more easily with the kind of
paid staff we hope to have if the UCSC-led project is funded.
Nonetheless, our process will be out in the open, and the OVC
volunteer community will be a useful source of advice and feedback to
the team.

Best regards,

Arthur M. Keller, Ph.D., 3881 Corina Way, Palo Alto, CA  94303-4507
tel +1(650)424-0202, fax +1(650)424-0424
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external 
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain    
Received on Mon May 31 23:17:28 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon May 31 2004 - 23:18:16 CDT